Hacker News Reader

Comment by duskwuff | Hacker News Reader

Note, however, that this doesn't mean that he would have gotten away with it if he'd cooperated. It means that the federal prosecutor decided that the act of obstruction would be easier to prove, since the intentional nature of those acts is much more self-evident.

View on HN

> [...]this doesn't mean that he would have gotten away with it if he'd cooperated[...]

If he'd stuck to the story that he just had an engine mishap would they have been able to prove that it was intentional?

They'd almost certainly have revoked his license to ever fly again, but filming everything you're doing isn't illegal.

Nor is wearing a parachute because you know you're a crappy pilot that'll bail out at the first sign of trouble.

>If he'd stuck to the story that he just had an engine mishap would they have been able to prove that it was intentional?

Isn't that what the black box is for?

It's very unlikely that a private aircraft this small would have a 'black box' (either of the cockpit voice recorder or flight data recorder variety). That said, the pilot in this case had incriminating evidence on board due to his own recording devices.

The tech in that airplane is much closer to a 1935 tractor than it is to even a 1985 passenger car (which also didn’t have anything like a black box).

Applying a bit of abduction, I see two narratives that track:

1. Some other illicit activity was going on in or around that plane.

2. The pilot thought he could make the whole mess go away by erasing physical evidence of the crash; his reasoning might be along the lines of "no evidence, no feds".

I find both equally credible. I'm stumped.

Never overestimate the intelligence of someone willing to jump out of a moving plane for clicks and views.

Never underestimate the propensity of a criminal to engage in multiple crimes.

I maintain it could go either way.

My understanding reading the original incident report, to my recollection, was that there was enough there that random grossly negligent youtuber trying to get clicks for an ad + a dozen cameras + parachute + not following safety protocol + not giving enough time of trying to restart before immediately bailing meant the beyond reasonable doubt conclusion would almost certainly be that this was premeditated.

Yes, because nothing in the plane caused a loss of power.

And even if it did, he made no effort to resolve the issue.

> If he'd stuck to the story that he just had an engine mishap would they have been able to prove that it was intentional?

In a normal setting, probably not. General-aviation aircraft don't have flight recorders. Helpfully for the investigators, however, this numpty decked his plane out in cameras. And then posted the video online. After he'd executed the cover-up.

General Aviation airplanes require an annual inspection (from an IA A&P mechanic -- that's airframe & powerplant with inspection authorization). My understanding is that the plane was out of annual (ie, bought as parts) and he fixed it up enough to fly. There are strict limits on what repairs you can do yourself without involving a licensed A&P mechanic. FAA actually does ramp checks on occasion to verify that your bug smasher has up to date registration and annual inspection. Regardless of how the flight ended, the flight shouldn't have happened in the first place and his PPL could be revoked for that alone.

Edit: this is wrong as pointed out below.

FAA doesn’t mess around with the maintenance regulations. If I remember correctly the A&P knowledge test requirement was to answer 99% of questions correctly, compared to something like 75% for a PPL (I might be way off but there was a large difference).

You're way off. Comically so. A&P passing grade is more like 70%. It's not a comparable figure to PPL ground school.

You’re right, but I’m wondering where my confusion comes from. I’m absolutely positive something required a much higher %. Maybe a different license or regs changed in the last decade or so?

I thought I remembered something like this— maybe it's a higher question count or lower time limit for e.g. commercial?

The FAA testing matrix seems to suggest all are 70% as of now[0]

[0] https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-09/testing_matr...

Getting strong Mandela Effect vibes now… can’t find anything other than 70%, now or a decade ago. But I’m virtually certain I didn’t make something like this up :)

Are you thinking of ATPL (ATP in America I believe)?

Yes, he’ll certainly face punishment. But I don’t think he’ll go to prison (or perhaps a suspended sentence) if he cooperated.

Nice reply. For other readers, I needed to Google these terms:

IA: Inspection Authorized

A&P: Airframe & Powerplant

> There are strict limits on what repairs you can do yourself without involving a licensed A&P mechanic.

Sure, you're right that this plane was clearly violating a myriad of maintenance violations. But maintenance violations aren't going to get you thrown in jail. They might get your license taken away and would definitely yield some fines, but not thrown in jail.

I am assuming of course this is on a personal GA plane (like the youtuber was using to fly himself). Skipping maintenance and/or doing it himself would have gotten him a few relatively small fines. He probably wouldn't have lost his license and certainly wouldn't have been thrown in jail for these.

Of course the rules would change significantly if this was a charter plane like Part 135, then things are more serious. He would have lost his license then, and maybe gotten some jailtime. Skipping or fraudulent maintenance on a part 121 (scheduled commercial airlines like United or Delta) would certainly yield jailtime.

It was pretty blatantly obvious from just the video.

The engine didn't just stop producing power, that would leave typically the propeller spinning, windmilling in the air. (unless the engine seized, but he was faking fuel starvation)

He put a bunch of effort into making sure the propeller actually stopped spinning, I think he had to actually reduce speed; Just so that your average YouTube viewer could clearly see the engine had stopped.

Probably, because he was stupid enough to record a video with cameras in the plane. But there’s plenty of ways to achieve it which could pass as accidental:

Accidentally lean mixture (e.g., grab the wrong control). Set to use an empty fuel tank. Set the fuel valve to off or in between settings. With some preparation, destroy a spark plug or two, only enable those spark plugs in the air - extreme misfires will be obvious on video.

There are plenty of pilots who wear chutes (and there are special chutes which basically replace your seat) but he also had a fire extinguisher strapped to his leg which is not a normal occurrence.

Is there a law that says you can't intentionally crash a plane? Honest question. There isn't a law that prevents you from intentionally crashing other vehicles. Just around property damage and endangering other people.

Is there a scenario where intentionally crashing a vehicle on property that you do not have permission to crash a vehicle on isn't reckless endangerment/reckless driving? Except maybe steering away from the oncoming bus into the jersey barrier or something?

I know there was at least one remote-controlled airliner intentionally crashed in the desert filled with crash dummies and stuff, though that was in an active partnership with the FAA

> Is there a scenario where intentionally crashing a vehicle on property that you do not have permission to crash a vehicle on isn't reckless endangerment/reckless driving?

Arguably whenever you could expect that not crashing the vehicle would lead to a worse outcome. In the plane example, this might be true if you expect to loose control of the plane at some point (due to mechanical failure or force) and a controlled crash is the best option to avoid (possibly) impacting a more populated area. But I agree that this is a rare scenario.

I think implied here is also that putting yourself in that dangerous situation on purpose negates whatever goodwill claim you have to self-preservation. Or, at least, introduces more reckless endangerment/driving for which you are culpable.

> law that says you can't intentionally crash a plane?

No. We do crash tests from time to time [1]. But at a minimum, you must control--not even just own--the terrain you're crashing into. (It's also not solely a Part 91/FAA matter. The EPA, for example, would also want to have a say.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experime...

What does "control" mean, technically?

I have an intuitive sense of what you're pointing at with the Boeing 727 crash experiment, but how does the law phrase it?

> What does "control" mean, technically?

"The power to govern, manage, direct, or oversee something" [1]. So if I own/possess acres of unfenced grasslands, I'd need to put up fences or people to monitor the property or at the very least crash site's borders.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/control

It's a more specific definition in aviation -- think air traffic control. You need to actively make sure that there won't be any other flights near where you're intending to crash your plane which is tricky if you just bail at altitude and let it sail into terrain for YouTube.

If you want to crash a plane, you'd likely have to apply for/receive temporary flight restrictions over the area where you want to crash it so that ATC can ensure everyone else stays clear.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/foa_html...

> you'd likely have to apply for/receive temporary flight restrictions over the area where you want to crash it so that ATC can ensure everyone else stays clear

Correct. I was simply talking about control of the land underneath. Owning and controlling the land doesn't mean you have any rights to its airspace.

The Wiki page says:

    The site in Mexico was chosen because authorities in the United States would not allow the test to take place.

When you wrote "we", did you mean the United States?

It probably falls under Careless or reckless[1] at the very least 14 CFR 91.13.

EDIT: Looks like user JumpCrisscross beat me to it.

1: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...

> There isn't a law that prevents you from intentionally crashing other vehicles. Just around property damage and endangering other people.

You can probably do whatever you want with your private vehicle on your private land. But on public roads you need a license to operate, and you must operate the vehicle in certain prescribed ways.

Similarly you can probably do whatever you want with your private air vehicle while it sits on your private land, but when you are operating in public air space then you must operate in the ways prescribed by your pilot license.

> can probably do whatever you want with your private vehicle on your private land

Sort of.

Own plane, own land and a filed flight path should satisfy the FAA's requirements, though you may also need to take active measures to ensure your private land is clear of things that could be harmed. After that, there is the environmental component. Our influencer here not only inundated the crash site with leaded avgas, but likely also sprinkled it all the way to the hangar. Given the track record of decision making, I have no hope he disposed of the parts properly, either.

> Given the track record of decision making, I have no hope he disposed of the parts properly, either.

Your instincts are correct:

> Jacob drove the wreckage to Lompoc City Airport and unloaded it in a hangar. He then cut up and destroyed the airplane wreckage and, over the course of a few days, deposited the detached parts of the wrecked airplane into trash bins at the airport and elsewhere

> Own plane, own land and a filed flight path should satisfy the FAA's requirements, though you may also need to take active measures to ensure your private land is clear of things that could be harmed.

If he had a private air field/airport and "landed" (crashed) the plane on his air field, then that could be argued, but there's still the fact that he bailed out of the airplane and left it in an uncontrolled state, in which case there's probably some kind of 'reckless' charge that could be thrown at him.

Otoh people crash stuff on the reg (crash tests, stunts, …) and an unoccupied plane should be quite predictable. If you can demonstrate that you secured the area and it is large enough there is low-to-no chances of the plane getting out from bailout conditions everyone woukd likely be satisfied.

> you can demonstrate that you secured the area and it is large enough there is low-to-no chances of the plane getting out from bailout conditions

You are probably underestimating how wast that area must be to do that.

pray tell how can I be under-estimating when I am not estimating anything in the first place.

> There isn't a law that prevents you from intentionally crashing other vehicles. Just around property damage and endangering other people.

Those two sentences don't make any sense next to each other. There's no way to intentionally crash your vehicle that doesn't include several other things for which their are specific laws for. One can't intentionally crash a car in the same way that you can intentionally swing a bat in your backyard without hitting anything.

Edit: Also, for what it's worth, it wasn't even his plane.

> One can't intentionally crash a car in the same way that you can intentionally swing a bat in your backyard without hitting anything

What exactly do you mean here? I've witnessed plenty of vehicle damage done on private ranchland from various obstacles, and in some cases, other family/friends' vehicles. If you wanted to drive your vehicle into a big rock on your own land, what exactly stops you?

Such a scenario isn't really relevant here, is it?

And you can't fly an airplane on your land because you don't own the air. He crashed a plane that wasn't his on land that wasn't his.

I'm not the one who contrived the scenario, I'm just asking what you meant when you contrived it, because your assertion, on its face, seems to be contrary to reality. In general, you can indeed crash your car into your stuff on your land all you want.

Did you mean to say that one can't intentionally smash a bat or a car into /other/ people's stuff without breaking a law? Because that seems pretty obvious.

So far, all of us are just guessing, so here's my guess:

What Trevor did would be considered an "aerobatic flight" [1]

"aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight."

He may have been technically legal on the FAA side, but reckless dumping of hazardous materials in the desert is probably an actual charge they could have nailed him on. Perhaps "operating a vehicle off an approved trail" type of charge, or some kind of wildlife violation / fire hazard are also what I would guess. Perhaps running afoul of some kind of parachuting laws as well, maybe having to file for that so other aviators know about it.

Someone below mentioned filing a flight plan, which has nothing to do with anything. Flight plans are to aid in search-and-rescue if you dont show up.

[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com